I agree with the judges final decision that the archivists do have a duty to the public. I think the wording is interesting, government and the public. The two are separate here. But the government is suppose to serve the people. The "immediate operational needs" I think is a way that it is serving the government and how it operates, but again, it is suppose to be in service of the people. I think the case is interesting overall because it exposed multiple ways in which a part of the government does not, particularly with destroying of documents pertaining to its citizens.

I was struck by the use of the word "sacred" here and applying it to the responsibilities of archivists. It reminded me of readings and discussions in my intro classes in which librarians are describe as "heroes" and that the library is this last bastion of hope and of democracy. Also, how when I mention what I am studying towards the response is overwhelmingly positive. In this regard, the librarian and the library is always good, when in actuality there instances of oppression. I don't think that the work an archivist is doing is always sacred and has always been, though there are moments certainly when an archivist or archives has done what appears heroic because something was physically saved and now we know about a person, place, or culture because of that work. Other times, I think it has been the opposite because archivists also discard what might be sacred or important to a person, place, or culture.